Thursday, February 01, 2007

Bob the Nailer


Thanks to my friend Whitefish, I have been informed that the magnificent novels of Stephen Hunter are now to be introduced in the Cinematic versions.

The first novel to be so celebrated (no word on whether others will be created on film) is "Point of Impact", ... arguably the first book of the series .... renamed "Shooter".

Catchy title, ain't it?


Actually, this is "based on" Point of Impact, so don't expect that the book you know and love is the movie you will see. (Amazon dot com shows their NEW version of the book cover, shown at the right, which is dramatically different from the original, shown at left.)


The image for the movie shows that the re-release of the book is a marketing attempt to relate the book with the movie, which suggests that the movie will 'closely follow' the book. If it doesn't I'm gonna be pissed because (a) it means I'll have to rewrite this article, and (b) I'm gonna be REALLY pissed because I very much enjoyed the book!

The film stars Mark Wahlberg, which surprised me at first because I had always envisioned Bob Lee Swagger (AKA Bob The Nailer) as an older man. A man with more experience written in his face. But I'm looking at the trailer at the Internet website for the movie, and I'm thinking ... well, okay. Maybe. Let's reserve judgement until we get to look at the movie, even though the man whose face came to mind the first time I read the book is Tommy Lee Jones. Hell, he was even born in the same year as Bob.

In Theaters March 16, 2007.
Side comment here: "300", the tale of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae (a la Frank Miller's Gothic/Graphic style), will appear in theaters on March 9, 2007. Good thing they're opening a week apart.
The Swagger series (Bob, and his father Earl) is one of those series which I reread EVERY year. The only cinder in the stew is Havana, and I'm not worried about that blip in the creative process because it's only one of eight books and every author is entitled to a swing-and-a-miss now and then.

Now, I know what you're thinking. You're looking at your bookshelf (just as I'm looking at mine) and HEY! There's only seven Bob the Nailer books up there.

Here's the really good news:

Amazon lists another Bob the Nailer book, The 47th Samurai, scheduled for publication on September 11, 2007!

A note about author Stephen Hunter (not to detract from your excitement at the news that A BOB THE NAILER MOVIE HAS BEEN COMPLETED!): if you're not familiar with him, he is a film reviewer. You can catch his reviews at RottonTomatos.com, which I assure you are as well-written as his books. (Note: his original reviews are for The Washington Post, which is a Liberal paper but I read it now and then because it is Mr. Hunter's 'Day Job' and you have to respect him for earning an honest living.)

Just as I don't like some of his books, I don't agree with some of his film reviews. Still, he's such an accomplished writer even his film reviews are worth reading on their own merit.

I wonder if he'll review "Shooter".

Geek Thoughts

  • I saw a flock of Oregon Ducks fly overhead today. How did I know they were Oregon ducks?
  1. It's February.
  2. They were flying EAST for the Winter!

  • What's the difference between "Ecology" and "The Environment"? The Environment is the Stage. Ecology is the Play.
  • This is my 10th year as Jerry the Geek. I created that nom de plume in 1997 when I began contributing to The Unofficial IPSC List. At first people asked me why I chose that particular nickname for myself. I spent a lot of time explaining that it was a take-off on "Jimmy the Greek", the (now notorious) Las Vegas Odds-maker. I explained that I'm a computer programmer ... a Geek ... and it seemed like an obvious nickname. People quit asking, eventually, apparently just accepting that I chose a name which is less obnoxious than that which others might choose for me. Since then I have pondered, and today I realize that I miss the obvious, TRUE answer:
"The Great One"
was already taken.

Area Denial

Last week, in "Gotcha Coming and Going", I mentioned that the military has developed a new vehicle mounted microwave transmitter to be used for crowd control. It's an interesting concept. It 'projects' microwave radiation with the effect, when directed at people, of causing their skin to heat up causing a burning sensation. They claim it has no harmful effects, it only distracts folks from whatever purpose they had in mind before the thingie was turned on them.

I'm a little dubious about the effects on very soft tissue such as eyes, but there's now a video available on YouTube showing the reaction of test subjects. One lady reporter Squeaked! and danced out of the path of the radiation. Nobody, including a platoon of Army volunteers, seemed to be otherwise harmed. Some even smiled in chagrin at their dancing avoidance of the radiation.

Here is the promotional video, where it's referred to as an "Active Denial System" (ADS). It has a range of 500 yards.

The explanation is clear, and it seems a reasonable non-lethal system with immediate applicability in places such as military urban perimeters in Iraq.

I'll warn you about the text accompanying the video. It was originally written by someone with an apparent case of the jaws against both the military and the current administration, but now I see that the text has been changed.

However, the comments are interesting. Here's the one I saw:

This weapon is still able to kill or torture ppl. Its a lie to tell its non-lethal. I saw other video and documentory on this new technologie weapon, it burn the skin without burning the material around. They did the tests on innoncent ppl in Irak, wich they are burned seriously (many are dead).

Ignore the limited English writing ability of the author (perhaps English is a second language -- I'm not being critical as I have not second-language skills at ALL!)

The charges made here are interesting. I haven't visited any of the other videos co-listed, so I can't comment on the validity of the assertions. I may say that almost anything can be mis-applied to caused effects for which it was not originally designed and I can't say I would be surprised to learn that this device would be deliberately mis-applied with destructive intent.

However, I'm dubious about the report of people dying in Iraqi testing. I've done a quick search of major news outlets (including among others The Guardian, the LA Times and the NY Times, AP, Reuters, USA Today) and I'm sure that a story like this would at least be as prominently displayed as the one about the Florida woman who claims to have found a razor blade in her Egg McMuffin.

UPDATE (The Next Morning):
I've done more reading on the so-called ADS.

Here's a bunch of people at BUZZFEED talking about this system which, we learn, isn't actually scheduled for deployment until 2010. And here's a PDF which explains it's not a MICROwave projector (my error, excuse the blunder, pay no attention ...) but a MILLIMETER Wave projector. It even explains the difference. With pictures.

Finally, the BBC weighs in with the vague 'feeling' that there must be something dibolical about the entire concept. Why? "Such a weapon also has the potential to cause panic and deadly stampedes." Even the Guardian (okay, ALWAYS the Guardian) has a negative impression to share: "According to papers released under freedom of information requests, mishaps during trials have caused blistering at least six times and one second degree burn when the beam was fired on too high a setting. According to the US military, the risk of injury is less than 0.1%."

Oh, well that wouldn't be good. Better throw the thing away, somebody might get hurt.

Frankly, I'm a little off-put by the whole thing.

No no no, I don't mean the ADC or the confusing terminology. I mean this early-morning blogging. I'm accustomed to doing all of my writing in the evening, even late late at night. Here it is 7am and I'm sitting at my computer waiting for the coffee to finish perking.

I've heard that people who write these weBLOG journals (surely not a serious attempt at communicating, just a diary that we leave unlocked for the whole world to read ... as if I could ever get that kind of traffic!) are to be referred to as Pajama Pundits because we spend all of our time online and never even have to get dressed all day. Sounds like my kind of job, I wish. Instead, judging from my mail, I stay up late so YOU can read exciting new (or exciting warmed-over for the next day) stuff like this while you sit around in your pajamas sipping coffee.

So what does that make you? Bathrobe Browsers?

Blogger Mania

Sidebar Links:
I've received a sidebar icon from Cowboy Blob, which I'll install shortly. No complaints yet about the cheesy icons I cobbled together. Either the owners of those blobs blogs weren't concerned, don't have something better to offer, or haven't read Cogito Ergo Geek for a few days. Could it be?

I'll install Cowboy's icon later, when I have time to spend working on my Template. It looks a lot better than the one I tried to make. That should come as no surprise, as Cowboy's pretty good at building these gizmos.

New Blogger:
LawDog tried the New Blogger ... an updated version of the software which is used to run this and thousands of other websites in the Blogging Community. (I love that phrase, almost as much as I admire the word "Buttocks".) He reported that it came as a surprise to him. A comment on his post noted that other blogs had reported problems, such as a slow load of Comments.

Syd at Front Sight, Press emailed asking me to change the URL for his blog to a 'mirror site' he created for his press releases because "When Blogger did the "upgrade" it got so messed up that I put up my own on my snubby site because I couldn't post anything on the blogger site. I am still posting the news on the blogger site, but that's all."

I loaded Internet Explorer 7 when it was (another surprise) sent to me as a MS Update. I prefer NetScape as a browser because it has more of the Foxfire-type features I like, such as tab so you can have multiple websites open in one window. Since IE7 has added this 'new' feature, I decided to accept the update. The installation wasn't as error-free as I had been lead to believe. Just 'RESTARTING' my pc didn't make it work. In fact, when my system came back up nothing worked ... not even the clock on the tool bar. I couldn't even warm-boot the computer (either with Alt_Ctl_Del or by pushing the START button). Instead, I had to turn off the box with the power switch on my surge suppressor, turn it back on, THEN push the START button.

I took the formal tour, noted that there wasn't a lot of really exciting new features (other than the TABs, which seemed to be clumsily done) and then tried to blog in IE7.

First surprise: when I copied the URL for the web-address where I edit posts from my NetScape browser to IE7, it couldn't find it! Then I fiddled with it for a while until I got to the Dashboard (the central control area where ALL of your blogs are listed), and when I tried to open Cogito Ergo Geek it wouldn't allow me to do anything because I didn't have a Google account!

I know that Blogger is a free Google product, and I'm grateful for it of course, but now they're starting to put some controls in that don't provide any advantage to me. There's a reason that I don't already have a Google account (same reason why I use the clunky Comcast email system instead of GMail ... sheer ornery cussedness!) and I resented this attempt to force me into their corporate mold.

Worse, as I navigated through their list of options trying to 'sign on', I discovered that unless you were VERY careful you would end up allowing them to change your blog to the New Blogger. Essentially, it's an Opt Out situation.

Now, the 'Old' Blogger isn't perfect but I'm familiar with it and, finally, it has become relatively stable. Having been an Application Programmer for almost 25 years, I am reflexively dubious about new software releases. For example, (I installed IE7 only because I was fairly certain I could un-install it using Norton GoBack, if the XP recovery machine wouldn't work.

Judging from the horror stories I've been hearing, New Blogger is only "officially" out of Beta Testing. In fact, this stage might be considered what I've come to refer to as Gamma Testing. That is, the software vendor found enough innocent optimists to get beat up by the Beta Version to get the very worst of the real-world bugs worked out (or they developed "Work-Arounds" for the bugs which were too deeply intrenched in the system architecture for a quick fix), and now they needed a larger universe of dupes testers to give it a thorough workout so they could discover the problems created by struggling to make it work under a wide variety of browser/operating system combinations.

In the programming buz, we call these people Pioneers. If you'll recall your American History, these are the people who moved into a new territory not knowing the dangers and ended up with arrows sticking out of their backs.

No, I'm not going to convert Cogito Ergo Geek to New Blogger until they drag me kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I deal with buggy software every day at the office. I see no reason to spend my otherwise enjoyable evenings trying to figure out why their software doesn't work as advertised.

New Blogger is to Blogger as New Coke was to Coca Cola. I still drink Classic Coke (and so does the rest of the Coca Cola Drinking Community ... there's that word again.) And I'll continue to use Classic Blogger as long as the 'other' option remains an option.

BTW, don't get me started on the word "Classic"; it brings up memories of ranting for years against the IPSC Classic Target. I guess I'll have to say I use the "Metric" Blogger.

BTW, I'm writing this in the morning instead of the evening. Yes, I'm still working on my first cup of coffee. Apparently it isn't kicking in yet.


Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Template Changes: Links

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

America Overreacting

David A. Bell wrote an opinion piece in the egregious LA Times on January 28, 2007.

In it, he postulated that America's response to the 9/11 attack constitutes an "overreaction".

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).
If I understand this correctly, Bell presumes that a World Power should not react as strongly as possible to an attack on home soil because they/we have too much military might to responsibly use it ALL in reaction to a casualty list which is 'too low' to justify the effort.

They don't "threaten the existance of the United States", so presumably something less than going to war is called for. He suggests that the threat is less than total extinction, but curiously fails to present his definition of a more appropriate reaction.

(What should America do? Kill 3,006 terrorists and then, suddenly, stop? This isn't any kind of resolution. It trivializes the Attack on America to nothing more important than a game.)

In justification, he points out that the casualty list (including non-combatants and combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan) amounts to "... roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents."

In all fairness, and with due respect to Professor Bell's position at Johns Hopkins University, I can only conclude that he is full of crap.

In this world, there is allowing your country to be considered a Paper Tiger, a soft target ... and there is a determination to never allow aggression against your country to go unpunished.

I support the "No Paper Tiger Zone" (with a red circle around it, and a bold diagonal slash) position.

The following is a comment I submitted to a Randon Nuclear Strikes post titled "Next Time, Kill More Of Us, Please!" (H/T also to John Donovan's post in Castle of ARGGHHH!)

Apologies for this non-IPSC post. (Full disclosure: opinion, supported largely by 'facts' from MSM and Internet Reference sources.) I'm trying to minimize the sociopolitical stuff, honestly. Sometimes, though, the Force is with me.

We hear a lot of complaints against the War in Iraq, not so many against the War in Afghanistan. I wonder why that is?

Nobody from Iraq or Afghanistan is accused of directly participating in the 9/11 attack on America (although Afghanistan is reliably said to be, or have been, the place where Bin Laden lives; the assumption is that warring in Afghanistan may someday result in the death or capture of Bin Laden.)

Still, some people insist that America has no legitimate reason to wage war in, at least, Irag.

They don't understand, and at least this one dimwit doesn't understand why America always "overreacts" to aggression.

The reason is that America, having an open society (nearly unique in the world, even today) can't defend itself against internal attack by keeping potential enemies outside its borders.

Well, can't or won't -- the reason doesn't matter, the result is the same.

The only viable alternative is to establish worldwide confidence in the sure and certain "overreaction" of Americans against ANY assault.

It doesn't matter if we attack the folks who attack us. We'll attack the country which sent the assailants, or the country which trained or otherwise supported them. If no better target is available, we'll attack somebody "like" the folks who attacked us.

This is retalliation, not revenge.

It's a pre-emptive move to insure that the world knows we will punish SOMEONE related to the attackers. If those "someones" fear reprisals, and know that they are a possible target, they may find it in their own self-interest to discourage any individuals or groups who might otherwise have mounted an attack on America.

There's another part of this:

While we're fighting Terrorists in Iraq, they aren't attacking American soil. Instead, terrorists and potential terrorists are lured to the killing ground in Iraq where their targets aren't innocent American civilians but armed and equiped and fully trained combatants.

Isn't it better to establish a beach-head in the Middle east to draw out these wanna-be terrorists, than to provide no better target than the American civilian population?

You bet your ass.

(Comment added to original post: Sure, as soon as America suffers another terrorist attack on home soil, we will read that "Bush's Plan Is Not Working!" from the Liberals and the MSM ... but I repeat myself. Five years of freedom from bombs in the subway and Anthrax in the mail will probably be seen as nothing more than a statistical glitch, apropos of absolutely nothing. Certainly not as the result of a resolute president inflicting an unpopular war on a left-leaning population of Ostriches.)

If we leave Iraq, we'll be seen as nothing more than a Paper Tiger, just as we have been considered after out non-reaction to terrorist attacks since the truck-bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut back in the '80s. Include in this litany of passivity the non-reaction to the slaughter of American troops in Somalia in 1993 ("Blackhawk Down"), bombing of the Khobar Towers in '96, the 1998 bombing of embassies in Africa, and the suicide bombing attack on the Cole in 2000.

As long as America would not react, its enemies continued to attack.

Oh, sure, there was the odd Tomahawk Missile attack which had no more result than the destruction of an aspirin factory in '98. That frightened nobody, and apparently served no better purpose than to distract the American publich from the Lewinsky affair. That was politics, not 'reaction'. Can you say "wag the dog?", children? I think you can.

"No Reaction" is an admission of a failure of will to defend our country.

"Ineffective Reaction" only invites contempt.

The only effective reaction is an over-reaction.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Hillary ... sings?

This video from YouTube just goes to show that:
  1. I'm better looking than Hillary (Check the Profile Picture .. I'm the one with the beard)
  2. I can sing better, too!
Well, can't everybody? At least most of us know all the words.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

January Dundee Match: IPSC Videos

In keeping with my new policy of videotaping matches and displaying the resulting videos with ALL movies taken on a single stage presented in a single video, I have some new movies for your enjoyment.

This weekend we squadded with several people we haven't competed with together. Note that I have declined to present videos of two new shooters: Mike and his teenage daughter, Alex.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usSquad member Sheri wore her new Match Shirt, and I was happy to gather her, SWMBO and new shooter Alex for a photo of The Ladies.

I don't know about you, but I still remember my first match in 1983. If videotaping competitor performance was the normal thing to do then, I would be grateful that nobody filmed my performance then. I'm repaying the sport by not showing the performance of new shooters today.

Mike and Alex, if you REALLY want to see how you did at this match -- email me. Everybody else, think back on your first match and remember: you don't want to know.

Actually, both Mike and Alex did just fine. They shot safe and, usually, accurately . When they ran into problems on the challenging stages, they took more time than other people in the squad. But they were never scary people and I would be proud to squad with them again.

There were six stages in this match. I had a limited number of photos from Stage 2 (AtoBtoC) so that stage is not represented in this album.

The five stages which ARE represented here are:

Stage 1: Paper Plates - 3mb download file size

This is the stage our squad started on. You start behind a barrier, dodge around the barrier to shoot at a half-dozen paper targets, then dodge around another barrier to engage six 8" plaes on a plate rack.

This is typical of the stages presented today. Essentially, you start out shooting fast and then you have to slow down and shoot slow to finish the stage. The people who won this stage never slowed down: they were so talented (or so skilled) that they never slowed down.

The only person I filmed was SWMBO, who did a fine job but not good enough to win the stage. She beat my time, didn't get as many points. We both shot the stage in 19.** seconds. Tenth place (out of 56 shooters) was 14.** seconds.


Stage 2: AtoBtoC - no photos or videos

I only filmed one shooter on this stage, and it was one of the new shooters, so I didn't publish the video. It was something a memory course with only four targets, and you had to shoot them from three different positions (with vision barriers restricting access to the targets.) It scored the best 6 hits on each target.

I thought I did a good job at getting all of my hits in 15 seconds. Tenth place was a Junior Production-Division competitor (Chris C.) who completed the stage in 10 seconds. I have decided not to be discouraged by being beaten by Chris C. in Production. This young man is a very tough competitor, and I look forward to the day when he beats me in every stage, instead of only half of the stages.

This should take him approximately 90 days.

I'm shooting Open, he's shooting Production.
I've been competing for 23 years, he has been competing for one year.

I never liked Chris.
Okay, that's a lie. I'm pleased that this sport allows a young man to experience competitive shooting in a safe environment, and especially that he can learn the joy of shooting VERY well. All of the Columbia Cascade Section Junior Squad are keen competitors, and as enthusiastic as a basketfull of pups. They are the hope for tomorrow, and a credit to coach Mike McCarters endless hours of instruction and example.

MD NOTE: This stage featured four very close targets, with the best six hits scoring. The scenario (you had to be there) was that you needed to engage each target at least once from three different shooting boxes. Lots of people took extra shots, so there were a lot of holes in these targets.

Fifty four shooters times a minimum of six holes for each shooters equals over 300 holes in each target. Because the targets were typically within six feet of the shooting boxes, most of the holes were in the A-zone. It was a hoser stage, so you know what it looked like when we got to the stage.

We were the second squad on the stage, and the targets were a mass of tape. We ran a couple of shooters through it, realized that we couldn't determine which holes were caused by the current shooter and which were the result of tape being blasted off holes made by earlier shooters, and replaced the targets.

Good news: the MD (Trevor) had already placed a replacement set of targets on the bay.
Bad news: there was only one set, and we expected to leave the stage with targets in the same shape as when we got there.

VERY good news: Trevor walked by as we were shooting, and I advised him that he needed at least two, maybe three sets of replacement targets. (There were six squads at the match.) He immediately brought us two more sets of targets, and we helped him to tape and paint the requisite hard-cover zones on those targets which needed it. This took less than five minutes, and it is a credit to the Dundee club (CVSC) and the Match Director (Trevor) that the response was so immediate and so helpful.
Stage 3: Steely Speed VII - 4mb download file size

This is a Classifier stage, which requires you to engage six steel targets (three Pepper Poppers, three U.S. Poppers) from behind a Bianchi Barricade.

The videos show SWMBO, Fish and me shooting the stage, and none of us strutted on the way home.

The 10th place finisher (Bill M., who is one of th B-Open shooters against whom I am directly competing) completed the stage in 4.77 seconds.

Nobody in my squad came close to this mark. In fact, I did fairly well and my squad-members congratulated me. I responded to the effect that "by this time, six people have beat my time on this stage". In the actual event, 10 people beat my time on this stage.

Four of them weren't competing in Open division.

I am terribly impressed!

Stage 4: The Rest Of The Steel - 6mb download file size

This stage features a lot of full-faced cardboard targets, and then forces the competitor to bear down to engage a lot of steel targets. I should mention that this match was a "rain match", which means that the usual lot of dirty tricks were avoided by the stage designers because they expected rain. It didn't rain on this day; instead, it was a beautiful warm day (forty degrees plus) with gusts of wind which tended to blow the targets ... both cardboard and steel ... down at the least opportune moment. No criticism to either the stage designers or the people who built the stages.

Those of us who shot the stage (which included both the stage designers ... MD Trevor and RM Bill) found that we needed to put weights on the target stands to encourage them to stand up during the occasional farts. Not our gasseous digestions, but the classic meteorlogical definition: "A short puff of wind."

You may find the cited reference doesn't acknowledge my definition of the word.

Deal with it.

I finished well behind the 10th place 13.55 seconds / 100 points, largely because I missed a 10" plate two times before I knocked it down. Like most of the stages in this match, winners were determined by their ability to hit small targets quickly.

In case it sounds like 'sour grapes' to you, this is the epitome of IPSC competition, and I do not object to the design of any of the stages. The opportunity to excel was present in every stage, and it was a challenging match.

This may have been the defining stage of the match, except for the stage which followed it ...



Stage 5: Pretty Easy - 16mb download file size (well, there were a lot of interesting videos)

"Pretty Easy" ... wasn't.

This stage prominently featured the Texas Star, and was the downfall of many competitors.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usThere was a 'hard cover' IPSC-target-shaped steel plate in front of the Star, and this scared the bejiminees out of many of the competitors. I'm not sure why, but I suppose it's part of the "Steel Targets Are Hard To Shoot" mindset, which is something that can screw the mind of any competitor who allows it to become a problem.

The thing to do is to just ... ignore the hardcover, and shoot the target you can see.

This is much like the shooting problem involved in any target with hardcover. It's another way in which the stage designer may choose to play with your mind, and allow you to defeat yourself.

It's worth a short note here to define the best way to engage the STAR rotating target, especially in reference to a hard-cover plate which obscures the targets during part of the rotatin.

First, realize that the hard-cover (as seen here) does not prohibit your engagement of the final target when the array is at rest. That means that, if you just wait a few seconds, the final plate WILL appear from behind the hardcover.

The trick is to coax it out from its hidey-hole as quickly as possible. That means that (unlike those stages where all targets in the Star are always visible), you want to make the rotation work for you.

The BEST way to shoot the Star, assuming it starts 'at rest' (the array isn't already rotating when you first engage it), is to shoot the top plate (on either side, if the top plate isn't" straight up"), then shoot the highest falling plate to slow it down or, ideally, even stop the rotational movement long enough to shoot the highest plate on the OTHER side.

If you do that with reasonable quickness, and accurately, you can essentially keep the array in balance. The falling-plate side is the heaviest, so by knocking off the highest falling plate you shift the weight to the OTHER side (the rising side), which then wants to move 'down'.

By going from one side to the other, you have the time to engage a plate which is either stopped (reversing direction), or moving very slowly.

----

But when you have a hardcover covering part of the plate, it's easier to shoot the top plate, then the highest plate on the side away from the hardcover. In this case, those are the plates on the left side because the hardcover is on the right side.

You probably (if you're following this lame description) thinking that this is counter-intuitive. If you keep shooting plates off the left side of the Star, wouldn't the Star rotate ever faster? The answer is that it takes a little time for the acceleration to occur, and you're removing energy with every plate you knock off.

But the rotation doesn't really start until you knock off the 2nd plate (top left), so the momentum doesn't have time to build. If you don't miss.

Besides, if you shoot the top left plate and then the top right plate, you set up a fast oscillation which makes it much more difficult to hit the plates unless you are willing to wait for the plates to slow down at the top of their arc ... or unless you're a very good shot. Most of us are not.

All you have to do is to shoot the top plate on the side opposite the hardcover, and do that five times is a row. Slow down enough to get the hits, and you end up looking pretty good on film.

WARNING: Do NOT shoot a low plate! That shifts the center of balance away from the bottom, where you want it to be, to the top, where you decidedly do NOT want it to be.

WARNING: Even more important, do NOT 'split plates'. That means that if you have three plates to shoot at it's better to shoot the falling plate but if you shoot the center plate you will have a Shooting Problem From Heck. Review the video and see what happens when you split the plates.

If you find yourself in that situation, shoot the highest plate, always. This shifts the balance to the lower levels, and they tend to dampen the rotational momentum so you have very slow movement.

Ultimately, I was very proud of my 15 second time on the stage, until I discovered that the good shooters were finishing the stage in 10 to 13 seconds.

Stage 6: Public Parking - 7mb download file size

This 31-round stage had a lot of challenging near-and-far targets, and was something of a memory course. They had snow-fencing vision barriers all over the place, and they put targets in places where you didn't immediately realizes there WERE places. They had seven steel targets, two of which activated 'clam-shell' type IPSC targets and the Pepper Poppers obscured US Poppers. Very challenging.

MD NOTE: It was also the slowest stage of the match, because the clamshells were WAY downrange and required the RO to walk far away from the center of the bay to score them. I'm not saying this is A Bad Thing; these were the targets which generally separated the winners from the losers. (I was a Loser, I had trouble hitting those little plates to activate the IPSC targets. Some shooters couldn't hit them at that range.)

But it took about 30 seconds for the RO to score those two targets, and multiplied by the 54 competitors that adds about 4 minutes to the clearance time for each of the six squads. Our squad finished on that stage, and the RM was bouncing up to recover scoresheets before we cleared the stage because ours was that far behind all the other squads, who had already finished the match.

It was a challenging stage, but when you include that time factor in the biggest stage in the match, you have to expect that the match is going to be slowed down. The MD and the RM knew that, and they made a conscious effort to minimize the effect. I'm grateful to Bill and Trevor for dealing with this so they didn't have to eliminate the difficult targets just for the sake of speeding up the match.
Unfortunately, the cold weather played merry hell with the batteries in the cameras, so we only got two full videos of this stage. Sure, I could have gone to the car and grabbed the warm battery stashed there for emergencies, but we were having too much time to leave the squad. At least the videos we DID get show me missing one of the US Poppers hidden behind a Pepper Popper, so you get an idea of how easy it was to foul your stage score on this stage.

You can see the scores from the match here.

INCIDENTAL NOTES:
  1. I hope squadmember Doug J. got his 1911 fixed. On the very last stage (Stage 6, Public Parking) his pistol decided there was no good reason why it should eject cases, and he was left with a zero score on that stage. We're thinking it was a broken extractor, and hope he lets us know that he found the problem and will get it fixed in time for next match ... in two weeks, at ARPC. You can see Doug handle the Texas Star on the Stage 5 link.
  2. Thanks again to Mike J. for bringing Alex to the match. She's a hard worker, a safe shooter, and cute as can be. Yes, I am aware that this is a sexist statement but we enjoyed her company and her dedication to Practical Pistol competition. We hope she and the rest of her family continue to participate in our own private exercise in public embarassment.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

The Coolest Gun Blogster Ever

Michael Bane, "The Coolest Gun Blogster Ever", has a new project in the offing: Downrange TV.

He refers to it as "just a placeholder" so far, but I'm thinking it will revolutionize gun-blogging because it will be (ta daaa!) a Video Blog!

Okay, I'm just supposin' here, but judging from the 'placeholder' evidence there will be a lot of quality content available in the future at this website.

I spent a little time at the "Placeholder" website, and one of the more interesting videos was a short interview with Bill Laughridge (Cylinder and Slide) who had built a "Browning 1908" in .45acp caliber. The interview, apparently filmed at the 2007 S.H.O.T. show ( and incidentaly titled The Coolest Gun 1908 Ever" ... get it?) featured Laughridge's Bespoke 1908 Prototype. It's a fine looking pistol, although I would have preferred it without the Grip Safety, and according to Laughridge it took 110 man-hours to produce and is available for the low low price of $8,000. He says he already has an order for 1908C&S#2 (my nomenclature; I have no idea whether it has a real serial number). If you want one, get your order in early.

Getting back to the main story, I'm excited about Bane's new website.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.usI don't know how he expects to find the time to produce it. He (already besides his television show) produces The Bane Blog as well as the online Shooting Gallery.

Doesn't matter. The only thing the website is missing (besides more videos ... "please sir, I want more!") is a Theme Song.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Gotcha coming and going

Alleged Carjacker gets shot in the buttocks.

One of the more interesting words in the English language ... buttocks.

South Carolina Gangbanger (what else?) tries to steal a car from the people riding in it.
Bad Guy stuck his gun in the stomach of a man getting into his car in a WalMart parking lot.

The lady passenger opened the glove compartment, pulled out a pistol, and shot the Gangbanger in the buttocks. It took her five shots, but she finally got a D-zone hit. Hit the ass in the ass, so to speak.

Lesson 1: Always escort your lady to the car, open the door for her, help her in. She just might save your ... er ... ass.

Lesson 2: Get some shooting lessons for your lady. Five shots ... come on! SWMBO wouldn't have wasted so much ammunition on a low-value target.


-----------------------

Military shows off new Ray Gun

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usNo, this isn't Ronald Ray-Gun (as referenced by Liberal opponents to his Strategic Defense Initiative .. aka Star Wars.)

"The military calls its new weapon an 'active denial system,' but that's an understatement. It's a ray gun that shoots a beam that makes people feel as if they are about to catch fire."

Airman Blaine Pernell, 22, of suburban New Orleans, said he could have used the system during his four tours in Iraq, where he manned watchtowers around a base near Kirkuk. He said Iraqis constantly pulled up and faked car problems so they could scout out U.S. forces.

"All we could do is watch them," he said. But if they had the ray gun, troops "could have dispersed them."

Sunday, January 21, 2007

USPSA Rules: 1.5.1.1

At the Tri County Gun Club (TCGC) match today, I raised a protest against a stage which was designed such that Limited 10, Production and Single Stack Division competitors would clearly find themselves at a disadvantage.

Specifically, two four-target arrays ( scoring: best two hits per target) were presented such that they could only be engaged from a single firing position. That is, this stage required a minimum of 16 rounds to be fired from a signle position.

I protested that this was not an IPSC-legal stage, because it required more than 9 shots to be fired from a single position.

This was a 31-round course of fire, but regardless of the number of rounds required the situation was patently unsupportable by one of the following USPSA rules:

1.2.1 General Courses of Fire:

1.2.1.1 “Short Courses” must not require more than 9 rounds to
complete and no more than 2 shooting locations.

1.2.1.2 “Medium Courses” must not require more than 16 rounds to complete and no more than 3 shooting locations. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scor­ing hits from any single location or view, nor allow a com­petitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.

1.2.1.3 “Long Courses” must not require more than 32 rounds to complete. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.

(Emphasis added)

The match director determined that, while this ruling was generally applicable, the stage design was permissible because it was a Level 1 match and was not required to comply with all USPSA rules.

I suspect he was mistaken in that the most nearly applicable rule ( 1.1.5.1) states:

1.1.5.1 Level I and Level II matches are not required to comply strictly with the freestyle requirements or round count lim­itation
... but this is clearly not applicable. Rule 1.1.5 states:

1.1.5 Freestyle – IPSC matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot targets on an “as and when visible” basis. Courses of fire must not require mandatory reloads nor dictate a shooting position or stance, except as specified below. However, conditions may be created, and barriers or other physical limitations may be constructed, to compel a competitor into shooting positions or stances.
During the course of this match, I did video a few competitors as they shot this stage.

The stage design required starting in "Box A", which was downrange and on the left side of the bay. The only targets which were permissible to engage were in the four-target array directly in front of the box "A".

Another array was presented on the right side of the bay, equidistant from the back berm. This array consisted of six steel targets: three Pepper Poppers and three US Poppers. The three targets in the front were forward-falling targets, and the three targets in the rear fell normally to the rear. The targets in the front of the array were aligned with the rear targets, so that they partially or fully obscurred the targets in the rear of the array.

Ten yards Uprange of this array, was "Box B". From this box, the competitor was permitted to engage only the steel-target array.

Box "C" was located 30 yards uprange of "Box B".

Downrange of "Box C", and only one or two yards uprange of "Box B", were two 4-target arrays which could obviously be engaged from "Box C".

The course of fire was established so that the steel-target array downrange of "Box B" could be engaged from either "Box B" at 10 yards, or from "Box C" at 30 yards.

Whatever arrangement the competitor chose to make for the engagement of the steel targets in front of "Box B", eight 2-round targets MUST be engaged from "Box C".

I realize that this description is confusing. I did film two competitors on this stage. One chose to engage the steel targets, as well as the two uprange arrays, from "Box C". The other compettior chose to engage the steel targets from "Box B", and the two uprange arrays from "Box C".

You can view the stage from both approaches at

http://jerrythegeek.arpc-ipsc.org/gallery/7t1/7t16_003

This is a 6mb WMV video, and I apologize for the size of the file download. But it does demonstrate the situation much more clearly than the foregoing description.

-------------------------------

There was another equally controversial stage in this match, which allowed the competitor to engage all targets from a single position. This 18-round course of fire was obviously in violation with the previously cited rule 1.2.1.2:

1.2.1.2 “Medium Courses” must not require more than 16 rounds to complete and no more than 3 shooting locations. Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scor­ing hits from any single location or view, nor allow a com­petitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.

That is, all targets were possible to engage from a single location.

I didn't challenge this stage because the MD, while well-intentioned, was clearly intractible.

You may view a half-dozen ways to engage this stage at:

http://jerrythegeek.arpc-ipsc.org/gallery/7t1/7t15_001


Note that if there were legal fault-lines on this stage which defined the 'back of the box', the question would have been avoided. Lines painted on a gravel surface were obviously not intended to serve this purpose.


If you can provide a different interpretation to this rule, as it applies to these two stages, I hope you will comment for my personal edification.

Incidently, you can see all of the videos we filmed at this match (there are two more) at:

http://jerrythegeek.arpc-ipsc.org/gallery/7t1

Finally, just for fun, here's a YouTube video of the first stage we shot. Unfortunatly, I only have one competitor illustrated.

Me.

Friday, January 19, 2007

ARPC January, 2007 - IPSC Videos

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usI've taken a different approach in composing IPSC Videos this month.

Rather than to present individual performances, I've combined several shooters in a stage-video so you can compare the ways each person addresses the shooting problem. That seems a lot easier than to view a dozen videos, when only four will serve the same purpose.

These videos were taken at the annual Classifier Match at Albany Rifle & Pistol Club, on Saturday, January 12, 2007.

If you're only interested in the videos, you can view them here.

The videos can be linked directly:

Bill M. shooting a revolver (8mb)

R&R Steel ... a fun stage (10mb)


Fluffy's Revenge ... the Classifier (10mb)

Bang & Clang ... the Classifier (7mb)


If you would like to see all of the photos taken, you can go to the main album for this match here.

and of course, you can see all of the photos I've ever taken, including videos, in the ( recently re-organized) main photo gallery here.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Global Warming

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usI know we're backward in Oregon, but this photo proves that we're WAY behind the Euro-Trash in our concept of Global Warming.

Click on the photo to see the full-size version, then look carefully under the SUV. See the shine? That, my friends, is 12 hours of freezing rain. On top of it (other than under the cars) is a half-inch of soft, SLICK powdery snow.

Oregon State University (the 'cottage industry' of my home town) was shut down until 11am today. At 5pm they closed it again in anticipation of more-of-the-same. Full pay to faculty and staff for the snow-day hours, so you know it had to be serious.

(The temperature at 5:15 was 36 degrees, but dropping fast.)

How slick was it?

It was so slick that SWMBO stepped out her front door at 7am this morning, slipped on her front step, and fell hard enough to hurt her back and put a big ol' goose-egg on her head. Guess who didn't go to work at all today.

It was difficult to put in a full day's work for a day's pay. I guess when the Global Warming thingie hits Oregon (my guess: sometime in mid-August) we'll all be working to make up the time lost.

After taking Martin Luther King day off, and half a snow day, we have three days to do five day's work.

I hate 3-day weekends!

But I like winter.

Undercover Mosque

In a decided turn from IPSC and RKBA content, I draw your attention from the recent post by Little Green Footballs (see the link on the sidebar). It consists primarily of islamofascist ("Wahibist") statements (available via YouTube) where the Imams in England reveal their agenda ... which is decidedly contrary to their 'public' statements.

I've viewed these three videos, which last for ten minutes each.

I have also viewed the expanded 6 videos, which are available here.

I found them to be disturbing. Inflamatory. And, considering that the statements are being made by immigrants who have supposedly move to England to embrace moral values common in that land ... treasonous, in that the call for Jihad is a major theme. The speakers adamantly reject tolerance of opposing views, consider non-muslims 'Kaffars", and call for the killing of Kaffars and other peoples.

I think they reveal much about the Islamofascist agenda and the way they convert other Muslims with their statements which may seem reasonable; until you consider that they openly proselytize mayhem, mass murder, and intolerance.

In retrospect, I must fall back on the mantra I learned from my friend, Earthworm George, who says:

What a bunch of maroons!

I can find no better way to express my contempt.

.

USPSA Rules Changes: 2008

"Spread the Word" he says.

I received an email from Rhino, a member of The Unofficial IPSC List, warning us that NOW is the time to tell your USPSA Area Director what you like and what you don't like about them.

Here's the full text of his email.

To all people with interest in the future if (sic) the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA), especially members:

Some of you may be unaware that a new set of proposed USPSA rules have been released for comment and feedback from the membership. The new rules are intended to go into effect in 2008 and will completely replace the USPSA/IPSC rules for USPSA matches. All IPSC matches will be held under IPSC rules.

You can find the proposed rules at www.uspsa.org.

There are currently some lively discussions happening on the forums in the members' area at www.uspsa.org. If you care about the future of our sport, whether you like the new rules or hate them or somewhere in between, you owe it to yourself to go and participate there.

The board of directors can't know how you feel unless you tell them.

Along those lines, you should also contact your Area Director directly with your opinions!

Summary:
  • Go to www.uspsa.org.
  • Download the proposed 2008 rules.
  • Download the document providing a list of changes and new rules.
  • Read the changes and new rules.
  • Go back to www.uspsa.org and enter the members' area.
  • Go to the Forums and register if you have not done so already.
  • Read and Participate! Repeat as necessary.
  • Contact your Area Director at least once before the Board votes on the rules.
(H/T: Horney-Nosed One)

You don't have to be a USPSA member to access these rules changes. (The "Members" function was temporarily unavailable when I looked there, so that's a good thing.) Instead, from the main page click on the "Match Rules" tab in the side-frame. All of the downloads mentioned will be available on the resulting page.

Note, however, that the USPSA Forum IS in the Members Area.
I think.

...

I expect to be reviewing these changes for the next week or so, and I'll be writing my own "Geek Yay or Nay" evaluation for submittal to my Area Director. I did that with the 2004 "Green" handbook on December 15, 2003, and it was a fairly lengthy document. Rather than full up a single blog article with escruciating detail (as is my usual practice), I'll put it in a MSWord file and make it available for downloading on this site.


Monday, January 15, 2007

USPSA Ohio Section Classifier Percentage Calculators

UPDATE: 14 April, 2008
This link is obsolete. see here for the current link.


USPSA Ohio Section Classifier Percentage Calculators

As a courtesy, I'm including a link here to the Ohio Section Classifier Percentage Calculator. (The same link is available in the Columbia Cascade website. Look for the link to the "Classifier Calculator" in the left-hand frame.)

This very sophisticated webpage allows you to select your division, and the classifier, enter your hit-factor on that classifier stage, and determine what your percentage of the highest score will be registered when your scores are turned in to USPSA ... ON THIS DATE. Remember, a higher 100% score may be turned in before your scores are registered, so the actual percentage score may differ from the results returned from this function.

Hit Factor:
Not sure how to calculate your Hit Factor for that classifier stage which looked pretty darned fast to you?

Your hit factor is the number of points earned, less penalties, divided by the time.

The 'stage points' awarded to you for that match is the result of comparing your hit factor with the hit factor of whomever won the stage in that match. Pay no attention to this number, which will be found on the match results.


Thanks to the Ohio Section, and to "Barsoom" Bill for pointing us toward this link.

NOTE: this link has also been added to the sidebar, right under the box which allows you to check your USPSA classification by adding your USPSA member number.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Winter IPSC is cool

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usYes, we do shoot IPSC in the winter. In Oregon, there's an advantage shooting when it's sub-zero and snowy; at least you're not trying to shoot in slanting rain, with wet targets and wet shooters.

People at work can't believe that we deliberately choose to spend four hours in the coldest part of the year at a shooting range. But when you've spent all week watching winter outside the window, and especially when the Holiday season has cancelled the regularly scheduled matches. it's a joy to get out and experience the change of season.

Spring and Fall are essentially identical. Everyone is wet, the wind is blowing, the targets are at best encased in plastic bags in a failed attempt to keep them dry enough that the tape over the old bullet-holes will stay in place.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usBut imagine a cold, calm day dimly lit by the weak rays of the Winter sun filtering through an overcast. It may be cold, but it's a dry cold. (Credit to our friend AJ, who cannot get through entire summer match without explaining how 100 degree August is a good time to shoot because" it's a dry heat.")

Most folks prepare for the cold weather. We wear layers of warm clothing, including gloves and hats and boots with two pairs of socks . Some people bring propane heaters with them, which helps to thaw cold-stiffened fingers before it's their turn to shoot. (People who bring heaters are VERY popular!)

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usWhen I got to the Albany Rifle and Pistol Club range at 8am last Saturday, the thermometer in my truck read 23 degrees. When I left at 1pm, after the end of the match, that same thermometer read 22 degrees. The "Action Range" at ARPC is on the North side of Saddle Butte, and no sun reaches the shooting bays from November through February. When there's no wind, as this weekend, nothing replaces the frigid air with that warmed by the sun.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usProperly clothed and prepared, it's possible to not only function at a snow-day IPSC match, but to enjoy it. I bundled up with four layers of shirts (t-shirt, mock-turtle neck shirt, golf shirt and collared sweat shirt) PLUS a winter-weight jacket. I had a wind-and-rain resistant pants shell over my denim pants. I had a thin pair of socks inside heavy wool socks tucked into six-inch height waterproof boots. I wore a cap, and gloves except when shooting. (In this picture, I'm the Range Officer; the shooter is The Hobo Brasser, who chose to dress much more lightly.)

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usWhen it was my turn to shoot, I removed the jacket and gloves. There was full availability to my pistol and reload magazines, and there was no restriction in movement.

Here's what it looked during shooting. Note that the only sign of impaired movement was a slight clumsiness in running with boots on. Give more practice, I would still be clumsy. This has nothing to do with either the weather or the footwear; I'm a Geek, I'm expected to be clumsy.



see the original here
Note: Yes, the white-painted steel targets are difficult to see against a background of snow. In IPSC, no shooting problem may be protested as being "too difficult". It's in the rules. Look it up.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usThere's more to keeping warm than what you wear, though. This picture shows the 'stuff' I brought to the range to help keep warm.

The red Range Bag and green ammo box (and the camera on top of the ammo box), along with the supply of water are in the truck at every match.

This day, I included the following:
  • a case of hand warmers ... I only used two, but I had more in case somebody needed them
  • a thermos of hot coffee. Tea, hot chocolate, or other hot drinks are equally welcome
  • a box of chocolate chip cookies. Energy bars, etc., may be your choice but I love Famous Amos cookies.
  • A 'lunch' consisting of a frozen "Hot Pockets". The range has a microwave; two minutes nuking the sandwich gives me solid food to mellow out the Sugar High I can get from the cookies. I didn't need it today, but I might have.
  • In a purple box (not shown in this photo) I have rain gear and a change of shoes and socks in the event that my feet get wet during the day. Also, a couple of towels and a full change of clothes. Driving home 'wet' is the best way I know to ruin an otherwise ideal shooting day.
  • The big black box holds spare gun parts, a cleaning kit, and the usual tools and emergency supplies I carry in the truck all the time.
The bottom line is, it's possible to spend the day in the snow and still have fun, even if you expect to spend a lot of the time just standing around waiting for your turn to shoot. I don't spend a lot of time spending around, usually. When I'm not taking pictures I'm working the range. I RO, tape targets, reset moving targets and steel targets. Sure, I spend some time BS-ing with the guys. But when you only have 7 people on the squad (as was the case this day), we all manage to stay busy.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usOne other point.

I've spent a lot of your time on this blog bragging about the three-sided metal buildings which ARPC has erected to make the range 'bad-weather friendly". When you have enough people on the bay, and the doors are closed, the buildings actually allow the body-heat to accumulate so that the perceived temperature is much higher than the outside.
.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan - New York Times

Democrats Plan Symbolic Votes Against Iraq Plan - New York Times

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usCan it be that the venerable NY Times is suggesting that "Symbolism" is A Bad Thing?

Take a look at the image they recently ran of "Dingey" Harry Reed, and tell me that they don't indulge.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Best of the Sidebar Blogs Today

Here's summary of some of the most interesting things I found as I was surfing my sidebar today.


Fun Turns To Tragedy!!! presents a 5 minute video of Jet Powered Man, which he calls "...the coolest thing that I have seen all year".

It's not Rocket Man ... This guy has wings, and a dwell-time of 5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ... but this looks like The Dane From Heaven.

Icarus, eat your heart out.


#
45-caliber Justice
includes a 31 minute video From Penn and Teller called "The War On Drugs Is Bullshit!".

Yeah, I know what you're thinking.
No, I don't do drugs.

Wait a minute ... yes I do.

I smoke cigarettes, drink liquor and coffee, and put oleomargarine (the evil "Trans-Fats") on my morning English Biscuit. Oh, and did I mention the bacon?

Nicotine, Alcohol, Caffeine, Transfats, Nitrates ... all legal drugs. And they all will kill you.

What's worse, the Drug Warriors will kill you, as I have mentioned before.

(Ninth Stage also has a few words to contribute on the same subject.)

The fact is, the war on drugs has caused the death of innocents , but we can't say that it has actually served its original purpose ... to lessen the number of people who use ilegal drugs. In fact, narcotics usage has increased since the War on Drugs began in 1971. (And as Penn and Teller propose, the case can be made that "street drugs" are actually less expensive today than they were 25 years ago.)

This is a program which already costs us billions of dollars a year, is not effecting the desired results, and actually causes harm to people who are not otherwise involved except for the excesses of those agencies who are attempting to stop illegal drug usage.

What's wrong with this picture?

The video will educate you. I don't know that the opinions presented there are supported by the actual facts, but at least it will make you think.

#

Cowboy Blob tells the story about an 18 year-old who tried all the non-confrontational give-up-your-stuff approaches to pacify a mugger, until said mugger said "your backpack's still heavy, what else do you have in there?"

At which time the teenager came up with The Perfect Squelch.

I loved the story. Hope to hear more about "Harry".

#

My Ol' Pal Phil at Random Nuclear Strikes *(SoftGreenGlow)* encourages you to contact your legislator in response to some interesting RKBA bills now being considered in Congress.

Phil's getting cranky and won't tell you how to contact your legislator because, as he says, "If you don’t know them off the top of your head/have their contact info in you “Favorites”, what are you doing calling yourself “An Advocate for Gun Rights”?"

I'm not quite as cranky as Phil is tonite. I'll tell you how to contact your legislator(s) because (Ta-Dah!) I have them bookmarked.

If you don't, yet ... get with it and make your bookmarks tonite.

#

Kevin at The Smallest Minority (One of the two Bloggers in The World who are even more verbose than I) has a surprisingly short article about "What it's like to take a CCW class in Kentucky". He presents it as "I'd exhaust myself trying to fisk this one".

Having read the article, I was struck by three things:
  1. He's right. I couldn't possibly fisk all the points ... pro and con ... which are raised in the original article (and I admit I'm feeling a little guilty about linking directly to it, because I want to encourage us all to visit the folks I'm citing here.)
  2. The author describes himself as a " ... liberal, pierced, tattooed, Zen Buddhist freak...". And he obviously holds his fellow CCW Instruction Pupils in contempt, who he refers to his fellow instructees as (among other, more colorfully descriptive phrases) "backwoods detritus".
  3. Still, the article is particularly well-written, and while his contempt for the usual RKBA priorities are made obvious by his glib patter, he makes his main point resoundingly clear; he wants to acquire official permission to carry a concealed firearm " ... to protect my wife and myself ..." and "... to have some harmless, high-caliber fun ...".
While the author is contemptuous of his fellow denizens of the range, he puts himself in the same category by virtue of his recognition of the two main reasons to possess a firearm: self-defense, and enjoyment. (Sport, competition, plinking, hunting ... it's all under the same umbrella.)

If you read this post, you'll probably be as enturbulated as I found myself. "This guy is an elitist asshole" may be your first reaction, but you may find yourself saying, as I did: "yeah, but he's our asshole". He enjoys shooting, he's willing to make the effort to jump through the hoops just to acquire a CCW license, and he recognizes the primary reasons for owning and using a firearm.

Everything else is hyperbole.

If you don't check out any of the other interesting links, I sincerely encourage you to read the Zen Anti-NRA (can't say I blame him, entirely), Anti-Bubba, lo-cal rant.

#

Speaking of which, I have been thinking about the establishment of a Monthly Award, to be offered for the most thought-provoking (or provocative) gunblog-related post. I don't have a name for it, and I doubt it would be something which would 'catch on' as an honor to be coveted by the awardees.

But if you have a suggestion for the name of such an award, I would appreciate some help here. It's something which I have already decided to do, and if I had already established it I would have awarded the "What it's like to take a CCW class in Kentucky" for January, 2007.

Okay, partly to piss him off, but mostly because it is so well written, and because it reveals a facet of the author's private priorities which he may not acknowledge even to himself ... justification for the 2nd Amendment.

If you have a suggestion for the name of this award, please emal it to me (see the email address at the bottom of the page) or comment on this article.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Slow Down!

Denmark, home of Coppenhagen (the city, not the chew) has "for years" dealt unsuccessfully with speeders.

Now they have a new idea for drawing the attention of drivers to the speed limit.

You can see it here (18MB download), but I warn you this is decidedly NOT WF (Work Friendly)!

Semi-nudity may not be the answer for YOUR neighborhood, but I guarantee you that if Corvallis, Oregon, chooses this approach to traffic control, it would be far more effective than Traffic Circles.

PS: Don't say I didn't warn you -- this is NOT Work Appropriate!

PPS: no, this has nothing to do with IPSC competition. Why do you ask?